68 comments:

The fact that the outraged person worked with rape victims says zip about what non-rape victims will do or say if they see a reason to. It might be silly or at least unproductive to worry about someone somewhere getting away with something by lying (a system where this was not possible would be a horrific tyranny), but it's every bit as silly to insist that no one will lie.

Now, one could argue that 20 weeks is plenty of time to realize that a rape has resulted in pregnancy or that you're related to the father. Except that the pregnancy itself might be a secret from legal guardians for that long.

More important than excepting rape is the seeming need to except "life of the mother" in the bill itself. I don't know how the bill could have made life-saving procedures illegal, and the inclusion of exceptions to the 20 week rule for true medical necessity implies that someone really was going to force women to carry a baby bound to kill them, however often that happens without anyone knowing before 20 weeks that there is a serious problem. Push much past the 20 weeks and it can be a cesarean instead.

I figure, if during the bad old days when abortions were illegal that there was a rash of women dying because they couldn't get a doctor to save their lives, I think we'd know about it because the examples would be trotted out constantly along with the back-alleyways and coat hangers.

It is not my intention to comment on the law or the amendment. However, statements such as "women don't make this up" or "children don't make this up" are simply wrong. Sometimes they do. Not often, but they do.

Fine. Amend the bill, and amend the amendment to say a any rape exemptions must be followed by an investigation. That way you don't get any, "Oh, yeah, I was raped, like so hard, and now I'm like preggers, so can I have my pills?"

And out of curiosity, why rape and incest? Do they mean incestuous rape? Or any pregnancies-by-incest? Seems that would create an unfair exemption for women who are in incestuous and consensual relationships. But if they mean incestuous rape, why not just say rape? Are they trying to use the scary unnaturalness of incest to their advantage? As though voters are like, "Ew! Incest! Well of course we can't let a baby like THAT come to term. Imagine the extra appendages!" I think murdering babies is more unnatural than incest.

Women who haven't been raped might make up that story. What about all the victims of statutory rape who aren't reporting the crime to the police while having their abortion courtesy of Planned Parenthood? The legislator mentioned three victims: an 18-month old, a 6-year-old and a 97-year-old. As awful as the crime against them, it's highly unlikely any of them would need an abortion.

No doubt illegal abortionist have killed women in the past, but probably not in the numbers reported. A death from a botched abortion would probably be pretty obvious in an autopsy, and so should generate a murder investigation. Are the pro-abortionist suggesting the police ignored all those murders?

The percentage of women getting abortion who report themselves are victims of rape or incest are small compared to the total number of abortions. The percentages of Black women aborting their babies is much higher than Whites or Hispanics.

"Now, one could argue that 20 weeks is plenty of time to realize that a rape has resulted in pregnancy or that you're related to the father. Except that the pregnancy itself might be a secret from legal guardians for that long."

My understanding that abortion after 20 weeks usually had to do with fetal genetic defects and occasionally maternal high blood pressure issues.

Ok I agree that the rape issue is a sensitive one. However, if this thinking that women don't make this stuff up, is the standard thought on the matter, there is one flaw with that.Why are rape victims degraded, and accused of lying in the court room?What about that story of the 11 year old, and Al Sharpton vilifying her.Where is the outrage there?They can't have it both ways ya know.

I betchya there are women who could go 20 weeks and not even know they were pregnant.

Wait. 20 weeks is 5 months, right? That seems really late.

Look. If you must abort your fetus that late for whatever reason, then I suppose you must. I wouldn't want to defend the issue. The site 'iconicphotos' ran a post that disturbed me probably permanently. The picture of Gerri Santoro was considered so sensitive by the site owner that he hid the photo behind another click for his post on the subject. And he runs some otherwise very disturbing photos. Learning the history of this issue in the US from that site has conflicted me tremendously.

Again, the comments to the article linked in this post to thinkprogress are worse than uninformative. They only do damage.

Of course women make up accusations of rape. Even if it made the slightest bit of sense to suppose that rape was the ONE subject people never lie about, there are oodles of documented cases of phony rape accusations.

This link makes it sound like abortion is outlawed even in cases where the mother's life is at stake. That is not the case.

Abortions would be illegal after 20 weeks, except to preserve the life of the woman. Current state law prohibits abortions after viability, which is determined by the doctor, usually at about 24 weeks. Ninety-seven percent of abortions in the state occur before 13 weeks, according to Planned Parenthood of Indiana.

And the rape and incest discussion was over insurance:

Turner made the comment while trying to persuade House members to vote down a Democratic amendment that would have allowed certain insurance plans to cover abortion in the case of rape or incest.

This link makes it sound like abortion after 20 weeks wouldn't be allowed to save the life of the mother. That is not true.

Abortions would be illegal after 20 weeks, except to preserve the life of the woman.

And the rape issue was about insurance.

While speaking on the bill Wednesday, Turner, the author, apologized for saying during debate Tuesday that a woman might falsely claim she had been raped in order to obtain health coverage for an abortion. Turner made the comment while trying to persuade House members to vote down a Democratic amendment that would have allowed certain insurance plans to cover abortion in the case of rape or incest. Representatives voted down the amendment.

The link in the blog post is badly written pro abortion rights hysteria.

Abortions would be illegal after 20 weeks, except to preserve the life of the woman.

And the rape discussion was about insurance:

While speaking on the bill Wednesday, Turner, the author, apologized for saying during debate Tuesday that a woman might falsely claim she had been raped in order to obtain health coverage for an abortion. Turner made the comment while trying to persuade House members to vote down a Democratic amendment that would have allowed certain insurance plans to cover abortion in the case of rape or incest. Representatives voted down the amendment.

I truly can't wrap my head around the idea that someone would seriously think that there's some sort of inability in women to make up rape charges. Does she really believe that, or is she just looking to be outraged? I'm lost. You could just as easily say "men don't rape", and you'd be just as accurate.

Synova said: More important than excepting rape is the seeming need to except "life of the mother" in the bill itself. I don't know how the bill could have made life-saving procedures illegal, and the inclusion of exceptions to the 20 week rule for true medical necessity implies that someone really was going to force women to carry a baby bound to kill them, however often that happens without anyone knowing before 20 weeks that there is a serious problem.

It's usually an issue of high blood pressure or bleeding in the mother. In those cases, they will continue the pregnancy as long as possible, but at some point it often gets to where the mother is at risk of death if the pregnancy continues. (I worked on the case of a woman just recently, 24 years old, perfectly healthy until then, but suffered high BP during the pregnancy which lead to a terrible seizure- she's a vegatable now, and who knows if she'll recover at all.)

When the risk is too great, they deliver the child (usually emergency C) and do what they can to nuture him or her, but often, the lungs are simply too immature. I wouldn't call that an abortion, but effectively, it's not really any different. I have no idea why you would seek an abortion instead of this sort of attempt to save the child, though.

"When the risk is too great, they deliver the child (usually emergency C) and do what they can to nuture him or her, but often, the lungs are simply too immature. I wouldn't call that an abortion, but effectively, it's not really any different."

It's very different from the perspective of the doctors performing the procedure.

What does it do to you, when you kill a child on purpose? I'm sure it feels different, does something different to your psyche, than trying to save her and failing.

I for one believe that women are completely capable of not getting pregnant unless that are assaulted.

One of my extraordinary pet peeves. I've been exercising my "choice" to either a) not risk getting pregnant at all when I couldn't accept the risk or b) limit the risk while accepting that a small risk existed and planning accordingly, since puberty.

I don't think that I'm that much more capable, intelligent, or disciplined than most women.

They do in England and here too. Feminists want us to believe that women never lie about any of this stuff so that they can put any man in jail simply on the word of a female. Feminists try to claim that 100% of domestic violence is committed by men also.

"No doubt illegal abortionist have killed women in the past, but probably not in the numbers reported."

Several key people in the abortion-rights movement of the 1960s/1970s have since openly admitted that the numbers of illegal "back alley" abortions claimed in their lobbying were simply made up -- there was no data.

Due to the vast increase in abortions since 1973, there have been far more women die (probably more each year) from unsanitary legal abortion clinics (e.g. see: Gosnell, Kermit) than ever died getting illegal abortions. Not counting, of course, the female 50% or so of the abortees who also died.

Lyssa: I don't think that I'm that much more capable, intelligent, or disciplined than most women.

But you might very well be more responsible.

Everyone lies about something at one time or another. Some people, men and women alike, aren't above lying about something extremely serious in order to get themselves out of difficult situations. Our criminal justice system is built upon the assumption that some people lie. The woman who claimed she was raped by the Duke lacrosse players lied. As a previous commenter, Norma McCorvey said she lied about being raped so that Sara Weddington could use her as a plaintiff to overturn the Texas abortion statute. That's why police investigate allegations of rape, like allegations of other criminal acts, rather than just summarily castrating the accused.

I'm no bleeding heart when it comes to the rights of criminals, but I am unequivocal in my belief in due process. It bothers me that so many liberals are willing to waive the presumption of innocence in favor of some sexist Victorian notion of female purity and integrity.

All these recent abortion stories have taught me to be wary of any claim made about proposed legislation if I can't actually look at the text itself, and research how it will play out in its details.

I absolutely agree with this statement and think it applies not only to legislation but also most reporting on court decisions, reports or studies by government agencies or supposed “nonpartisan” (which doesn’t preclude ideological or other bias) organizations, polls and surveys (seeing who was polled, the exact wording of the questions, and the methodology is a must), and a whole array of other things which require either specialized knowledge or doing some research to understand.

Of course some people make up all kinds of things, but why would any of you believe the insertion of such an option is wrong? Are you also saying that when a child says they were physically or sexually abused we should automatically assume they're just making it up?

And are you saying that there are so many woman who merely "make up" being raped, that those who are actually attacked and raped, should not be excluded from such a law?

Maguro - "I do like how she added the bit about Indiana. You'd totally expect the bitches in Illinois and Kentucky to invent rape stories, but such a thing couldn't possibly happen in the Hoosier state."

Didn't we just have a dust up where Assange had consensual sex with two different women on two different occasions: days later they met, and discovered they had both had been his sex partner. Only then did they decide it had been rape and filed charges. Wasn't that in the news? Or am I dreaming. (Of course, those women weren't from Indiana!) When false charges of rape are aired that denigrates and minimalizes those with legitimate complaints. Women who make false rape claims need to receive the same sentence the man would have gotten, had the rape claim been true.

A quick google shows that there's all kinds of disagreement of the actual numbers of false rape allegations.

You wouldn't think it would be that difficult to quantify, would you?

Since the numbers seemingly aren't being tracked, this shows that there's no follow through against women who make false rape claims, otherwise they'd be in the court stats.

Since there's no legal action against women who make false claims (e.g. Ms Magnum in the Duke case), what disincentive is there for a woman in extremis to not make these claims if they can advance her position vis-a-vis an abortion clinic, a wayward husband, a bastard of a boyfriend, etc?

Do you still think American women are angels of the household? Do you have any other quaint Victorian notions you like to air?

Please re-read my post and notice who it's directed at --- not you, Jeremy, who was castigating the lot of us for our brutish insensitivity on the question of false rapes charges in general

as for your point, I generally agree with you -- there is little lying about rape to get an abortion. There is no need in most cases to do so, since Roe V Wade gives American women a broad right to abortion services.

If, however, a state restriction passed SCOTUS muster that required women to claim rape in order to get an abortion, and there was no penalty for lying about it, then, yes, women would lie about it all the time.

If a person has a desperate need for something, and all it takes is an unpunished lie to get it, who won't tell the lie?

It's the notion that we have to pretend that no woman lies about rape in order that true victims will believe that they will be believed when they report the crime. So this "social good" outweighs Truth.

The problem with these sort of cooperative lies is that the opposite happens. Everyone knows there is an agreed upon lie to maintain, which means they know the truth, which means that no victim is going to be persuaded or comforted by the lie we're all supposed to tell.